0

Should Warner Give Up the Fight for Superhero Supremacy?

There's no disguising the truth that Green Lantern has thus far been a box office failure, both here in the U.S. and worldwide. Box Office Mojo puts the domestic gross at $91 million through Friday. The total rises to $120 million if you count overseas viewings in the gross.

With numbers like that, you'd think Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) would move on rather than make a sequel. Not so fast. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Warner Bros. is mulling a second go at putting DC Comics' Emerald Knight on the big screen. (An initial THR report said studio executives already decided on a sequel.)

This is what happens when you let a wizard run your world. Harry Potter, in this case.

Since Hogwarts first arrived on the big screen in 2001, Warner Bros. has reaped the windfall from more than $6 billion in worldwide box office receipts. Operating profit from filmed entertainment exceeded $1.1 billion last year, more than double 2001's total. Finding a replacement for Harry Potter is key to growing that profit base.

Yet investors skeptical of the wisdom of staying with the Lantern franchise may have a point. The original trailer impressed few, in part because it emphasized comedic timing over epic adventure. See for yourself:

Please enable JavaScript to view this video.

Seeing this doesn't inspire me. Rather, it takes me back to Ryan Reynolds' early work in Two Guys, a Girl, and a Pizza Place. Judging by the Lantern's light box office haul -- which Fools predicted -- I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Don't get me wrong. A good blend of comedic timing is important. A few mild cracks made Walt Disney's (NYSE: DIS) Thor enjoyable. Sporting interplay between James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender at key moments makes X-Men: First Class poignant and adds depth and interest to characters that were interesting to begin with. As a result, News Corp.'s (Nasdaq: NWS) 20th Century Fox is sitting on $320 million in worldwide box office receipts.

Warner wasn't wrong to try to cash in on Reynolds' natural charm. The screenwriters -- all four of them -- just failed to find the right blend of epic adventure and comic relief.

Betting on a sequel would mean betting that whoever writes the follow-up can walk the inevitable tightrope without falling. Can it be done? Is the effort worth it? We're asking you. Use the comments box below to let us know whether you think Time Warner would be justified in funding a sequel.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

Sending report...

Tim Beyers first began writing for the Fool in 2003. Today, he's an analyst for Motley Fool Rule Breakers and Motley Fool Supernova. At Fool.com, he covers disruptive ideas in technology and entertainment, though you'll most often find him writing and talking about the business of comics. Find him online at timbeyers.me or send email to tbeyers@fool.com. For more insights, follow Tim on Google+ and Twitter.